A Worcester County resident expelled this year from Johnson & Wales University following allegations of sexual assault is suing the school, claiming that he was falsely found responsible by an unfair disciplinary process.

The male student, a junior at the college, was expelled in November after a female student alleged that there were two nonconsensual sexual encounters between them last year, according to the suit.

"In just five weeks from the date the complaint was formally filed against him, the plaintiff was found guilty of sexual assault, expelled from the University, removed from the campus and branded a sex offender, with his entire future in ruins," the suit claims. "The defendant university's actions are the direct result of a foundationally flawed process of investigation and discipline during which the plaintiff was denied the most basic elements of fairness promised to him by JWU in its Student Handbook."

Both students are anonymous in the lawsuit, with the plaintiff referred to as John Doe and the woman who accused him of sexual assault identified under the pseudonym Mary Smith.

In the lawsuit, Doe claims that the university refused to provide him with a copy of the complaint against him, failed to prepare him adequately for the hearing and conducted a biased investigation. The sexual encounters were consensual, he claims, alleging that Smith was pressured into reporting them as a sexual assault by her boyfriend -- who also served as her advisor during the hearing.

Johnson & Wales, a private university in Providence, R.I., said it could not comment on pending litigation.

According to the suit, Doe and Smith were friends who casually slept together six times during the 2016 school year.

In June of 2017, Smith's boyfriend, who had been dating her non-exclusively while Smith and Doe were also seeing each other, reported that she had been sexually assaulted, the suit claims.

The boyfriend told school officials Smith had told him about the assaults earlier that year and that he was reporting the incidents without her knowledge, according to the suit. Investigators reached out to Smith, who initially told them "she did not need any help," Doe's suit claims.

Then, in September, Smith and her boyfriend asked the school to bring a formal sexual assault complaint against Doe. She claimed that in September of 2016, Doe had rough sex with her that left her with bruising, and that their sixth and final time having sex began as consensual but continued after it became rough she began to experience pain, according to the suit.

It is unclear if the elements of the complaint included in the lawsuit represent Smith's full descriptions of the encounters. MassLive was unable to independently obtain a copy of the complaint and could not reach Smith for comment, due to her anonymity.

Doe was informed of the sexual assault and sexual harassment charges against him on Oct. 3, participated in a hearing on Oct. 20 and expelled on Oct 23, the lawsuit says.

He alleges that the hearing process was stacked against him, and procedurally unfair -- starting with the claim that the school did not allow him to read or obtain a copy of the complaint. He was only allowed to briefly take notes as a school official read it to him, and his attorney James P. Ehrhard told MassLive the school has also refused to give him a hard copy of the complaint.

NCHERM Group partner Daniel Swinton, whose company consults colleges on sexual misconduct and Title IX issues, said refusing to provide an accuser or victim a copy of a complaint is not best practice for universities.

"It is an industry standard to provide both parties copies of all evidence, including a copy of a complaint or other documentation, sufficiently prior to the hearing to allow the parties to adequately and fully address the allegations," Swinton wrote in an email.

The suit also claims that Smith's boyfriend, who encouraged her to come forward with a complaint, served as her advisor during the hearing, and that Doe was not allowed to question him as a witness.

Swinton said it is unusual for a potential witness in a case to be allowed to serve as an advisor at a hearing.